addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrosseditemptyheartfacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo
Jason
SweynTUV
London, GB
Post #: 189
The more I hear from Peter B the more I find I agree with his thinking and like his style..

Peter Boghossian on the Malcontent's Gambit podcast

Adrian you will appreciate this, particularly his comments on the disastrous drift towards relativism within academic leftism and classical liberalism.
Georgi L.
Guffaw
London, GB
Post #: 1,834
Yes yes yes. At last someone to help us take on the lefty 'respect, tolerance and offence' brigade.

This ridiculous notion that it is ethical to 'respect' religion and therefore not engage in proactive conversations just fuddles my poor brain. Que??? It is ethical to leave every generation of children and women, who didn't choose religion but had it foisted upon them by loving parents, to carry on being victims of victims?

As Peter Boghossian says, surely it is condescending NOT to discuss the irrationality of ideas. Otherwise aren't you guilty of a kind of inverted 'racism'? (I'm using the term racism as apologists use it of course).
Adrian
KingHell
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 710
If religion is a virus then so too is political correctness. It causes people to ignore real issues in much the same way that the German nation ignored the Nazis. It's part of a very sinister "I'm alright Jack" school of thought masquerading as concern for people's feelings, rights and culture. Whereas really it is nothing more than abdicating social responsibility, or used to gain publicity for some personal or political agenda by targeting those who actually care and stand up for others, like Dawkins.
Jason
SweynTUV
London, GB
Post #: 199
What I am hearing from those trying to take down Dawkins is that choosing to state one fact rather than another is, in and of itself, evidence of racism. Dawkins 'chose' to speak about the relative dearth of Nobel Prizes won by people with muslim beliefs and this choice MUST be motivated by an underlying racism, because he could have chosen to speak about something else that cast that section of society in a better light. By this way of thinking there really are no facts, only motivations and by these will you be judged. The truth or falsity of what Dawkins said is of no interest at all, only his unsaid intentions and these we are free to decide for ourselves. He has no say in the matter. His refusal to be quiet or renounce 'the fact' is just further evidence of his incorrect thinking.

How horribly Kafkaesque. And still it moves.
Adrian
KingHell
Group Organizer
London, GB
Post #: 711
Diane Abbott owes a resignation because what she tweeted was most unambiguously racist. Has she been drummed out of public life? Nope. How anyone could think that Dawkins, probably the most concise speaker ever would ever 'misspeak', or whatever they call it when people deliberately said something they later regret and retract, is beyond me. It's a smear campaign without foundation as per usual. Well there's that phrase isn't there that a lie has already gone round the world before the truth has its pants on.
Georgi L.
Guffaw
London, GB
Post #: 1,836
he could have chosen to speak about something else that cast that section of society in a better light.
Yes, he should have said they have really nice samosas? He's not a chef, therefore obviously he comments on something within his own sphere. And within the spheres of education and progress, the Islamic world has now buried its once more enlightened self under dogma. To the extent that thinkers are evidently not allowed the freedom to think, and nor is the thinking valued. From the school of if the truth hurts, shoot the messenger I suppose.
Daniel
user 85062902
London, GB
Post #: 18
I liked the quote the other night about the left being "faith enablers"

Read this last night about the recent stop offending people storm in a tea cup. Rather good.

http://www.skepticink...­
Andre
user 65942292
London, GB
Post #: 6
I agree with the idea of gently challenging people's epistemology. We rely on evidence to try alleged criminals and it is hard to imagine public opinion going along with the notion of revealed guilty or revealed innocence. But there was one thing he said which I don't agree with: the claim that people of faith are unwell. When we talk about a body being unwell we are referring to illnesses. Bodies have evolved and they function in a certain way which illnesses affect adversely. To say that people of faith are unwell is to assume that their natural mental set up has been infected in some way, and now their minds are not working as they should. In my opinion there is a difference between evolved organisms and evolved cultures. Beavers never go beyond building their dams in a certain way. It is said that animals do develop cultures, but these cultures are so limited, compared to what humans do, that I'm inclined to think that the word culture should have a separate meaning when referring to non-human animals. Human beings have a habit of perverting their 'initial set-up' by developing human culture. I would be happy to accept that people of faith are unwell to the extent that many of them partake of cultures that have outgrown certain natural tendencies of human beings. And so, in the same way that we no longer have to live with problems that come naturally from our wisdom teeth, we are in a position to combat faith, but only because our culture, rather than our bodies, have evolved enough to allow us to do so.
Georgi L.
Guffaw
London, GB
Post #: 1,837
But there was one thing he said which I don't agree with: the claim that people of faith are unwell. ...To say that people of faith are unwell is to assume that their natural mental set up has been infected in some way, and now their minds are not working as they should
But isn't that exactly how it is Andre? The introduction of the false idea that faith is a virtue and a good way to live your life by, at the development stage in a child's early life must inevitably lead to a faulty functioning! Whether you live by faith or by reason is such a central part of the human condition that even if you're at the lower end of religoisity, it will still affect your behaviour in a huge way.

If we think of the concept of equality, someone who believes in slavery could never be considered to be a fair person, so matter how fair and just they were in every other area of life. We would consider that the slavery part makes up too large a component of Equality, so without that it means they cannot reach the 50.00001% to be considered fair.

IMV this is the same for someone who believes in the existence of a god. The faith meme has adversely affected too large a component of their thinking about such a central issue, so that no matter how unaffected and rational the rest of their thinking is, they cannot reach the 50.0001% rationality needed to be considered rational ...and cognitively well.
Georgi L.
Guffaw
London, GB
Post #: 1,838
Kieron wrote :
Excellent talk, but for me when debating with religious people then use a tactic that you are confident with. The Quran, Buy-bull and Torah are the 'Constitutions' of the Abrahamic religions, and if one has knowledge of these books, even a tiny piece of knowledge, then imv, throw some of the evil verses back at them. But if attacking their 'faith' works for you, then fine, but,,, always good to have more than one string to your bow imv ;-)
Kieron, I think as long as we're doing something and not abdicating responsibility with 'who are we to say -itis' then it's all good. For people like you who were brought up religious and unfortunately have had the crap drummed into you, if you feel it helps to use that knowledge then all well and good. As you've often said, the main thing is to avoid entrenching them. As long as we can make people think, but not goad them into defending the crap, then as you say, it's all strings to a bow. Too often though people try to win the argument and it gets very heated. At all costs we should avoid anything that makes them more rather than less entrenched, and personally I think the 'we not you, no god, no politics...focus on how we CAN know rather than what we know' Boghossian method is unbeatable for that because it doesn't try to 'win'.

And for those of us that were lucky enough not to have to learn all religious crap as children, to do so now would be a big waste of time IMO - that time can be much better spent.

Powered by mvnForum

Optional Contribution

GBP10.00 to laag.events@gmail.com

This covers: This is to help with LAAG's activism and the Ministry of Reason project.

Payment is accepted using:

  • PayPal
  • Cash or check - “Please email us and we'll send details. Or see us at any LAAG own meetup (i.e. not EXTERNAL events etc.) Again if in doubt email us.

Refunds are not offered for this Meetup.

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy